Intervening Acts

• When did the case of r v smith occur?

  1959
• what was the legal principal used in r v smith?

  the chain of causation was broken, in this case by a third party.
• What happened in the case of r v smith?

  Two soldiers were fighting and one was stabbed in the chest. The victim was treated with artificial respiration, but that made their wound worse and then the victim died as a result.
• What was the outcome of r v smith?

  The defendant was still found guilty of murder as the intitial stabbing was more substancial and influential towards the victim's death than the artificial respiration. However, with proper treatment the victim had a 75% chance of survival.
• When did r v cheshire occur?

  1991
• What was the legal principal that was used in r v cheshire?

  Novus actus interveniens, meaning an act that broke the chain of causation.
• What happened in the case of r v cheshire?

  The D shot the V, the V needed a tracheostomy. Due to scar tissue blocking the tracheostomy, and doctors not diagnosing and treating said issue- the victim died.
• what was the outcome of r v cheshire??

  The defendant was still found guilty of murder as the GSW to the victim was the substantial and operating cause of death.
• When did the case of r v jordan occur?

  1956
• what was the outcome of r v jordan?

  The defendant was not found guilty of murder because their actions were not the operating cause of death.
• What happened during the case of r v jordan?

  the defendant stabbed the victim, who then was hospitalised. They were almost nearly healed, till they were givien a medication that they were alergic to- in a large dose. The victim died as a result, and this was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.
• What legal principal was used in r v jordan ?

  The defendant wasnt found guilty as their actions were not the operating cause of death..
• When did the case of r v malcherek happen?

  1981
• What happened during the case of r v malcherek?

  The defendant stabbed his wife, and so she was put on life support. After the life support was switched off, the victim died.
• What was the outcome of r v malcherek?

  The court of appeal ruled that the defendant was liable for the victim's death, and not the doctors who turned off the life support.